• Capatalism and Communism. (Which is best?)
    481 replies, posted
Oh goodie the old nazism = communism coming from, you guessed it, a ('anarchist') liberal who is neither. Ill humor you when I get home.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35302409](I added some more goodies, in case you missed them.) Alright, by that reasoning one could say the National Socialist ideology is good (Loving your nation and people, right? Whats so bad about that?) but lets ignore that, shall we? Lets look at capitalism. It has a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market]free market[/url] and it works because people are selfish. Lets say Bob gets told he can work as hard as he can/wants and get to keep all the money to him self, its going to motivate him a lot, right? Why not since its going straight to his pocket and that's a good [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation]motivator[/url] for people who work and is going to not only benefit Bob but also his employer too since he will get a hard working individual with good motivation. That works. We can just look at the advancement in Europe to see that it works. In case my point didn't come across. Working for points = Good motivator = Good Work force = Works. Also, a reward system works. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_(psychology)]That is a fact in psychology.[/url] For Communism to work it would require a society of people who are that open minded and motivated to work for the benefits of others. Sure its a great idea but that isn't our [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness]nature[/url] since we usually prioritize [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct#Overview]our own survival[/url]. But okay, that might be possible. Another thing for it to work would be a way to ensure that everyone does their part (Ignoring that that would require an authority) which would require a similar system like in Capitalism, a point system, but without the possibility to get more by working more or doing a better job resulting in a unmotivated individual who sees no point in being better than the other guy because they will get the same thing anyways and he will not be able to advance in his personal career resulting in a lot slower progress and advancement of society. I just cant see why you would pick a system where you are doomed to be equal as your neighbour and with no possibility of advancing in your personal career over a system where motivation and reward are important and there is no limit on your success. Can you please explain to me why that is?[/QUOTE] Alright, finally some actual arguments. Anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and many forms of communism include the free market as part of their goals. The free market works, and I agree. But capitalism is unnecessary. I on't agree that we are naturally selfish- in fact, nature kind of shows the opposite, as for most of our development, we were community-centric, not individualist, because of the need of a strong communal bond to survive. Free market is fine- capitalism is not. Capitalism is exploitation of the labor force, and is not the only type of free market. You assume that communism needs the communal or societal generosity of all peoples- this isn't really the case. You also assume that communism would condemn all people to be equal without advancement in society- another blatant falsehood. Even Marx wrote about, at the very basics of communism and Marxist theory, that not all people are equal, and that it would do nothing but crush individuality if we enforced total equality in wage and in society. Communism does not prevent social mobility- ideally, in a pure communist system you could get rich and you could get poor. You just can't exercise authority using that wealth. There is room for social mobility, based on what you give to the system and what you get from it. Again- there can be a free market in pure communism, and it can allow for social and economic mobility. The main difference is that the industry works for the people- the people don't work for the industry. The means of production are owned and operated democratically by the workers who make a living off them. Terry Eagleton makes a strong argument, I think, in his book [I]Why Marx Was Right[/I] (one of the few good arguments in the book, I think), that talks about what Marx meant by equality. And to put it simply- he meant equality in social status and in economic rights (civil rights are another issue, but most Marxists and Leftists are strong supporters of civil rights and liberties, at least for everyone but the exploiters, and even then you have many Leftists arguing for their rights and liberties as well, as much as a communist, anarchist, or socialist system would allow). Communism would provide for rights similar to how the Western World views rights and liberties today- all people should receive equal rights and liberties to act out expression, own personal property, and have basic protections under the law from the state. The main difference is that Marxism also extends those rights and liberties into the economic sphere as well as the social, and that initially at least, many communists believe that the rights of counter-revolutionaries and the bourgeoisie should be limited to prevent a backlash against the revolution by using their influence and authority. To this, I respond using Goldman's argument- that it is not necessary, and it is even contradictory, to limit the rights of the bourgeoise on the principle of creating greater freedom. You seem to think that I choose a system where there is no advancement, no reward (which is wrong- even in a system where there is no incentive of economic gain, you have the incentive of societal wellbeing- your motivation is along the lines of better quality living and low cost of goods)- I don't I choose communism, free-market variety, because it allows for these incentives, without the exploitation and damage of capitalism. [editline]26th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;35302843]Oh goodie the old nazism = communism coming from, you guessed it, a ('anarchist') liberal who is neither. Ill humor you when I get home.[/QUOTE] I'm not even bothering to wait until I get home. I'm writing this in class. Opportunity too good to give up.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35301914]Okay. I am afraid I cannot see the difference the atrocities of National Socialists and the Soviets and other Communist factions. In fact, more people have been killed under Communist rule than National Socialist one.e Source for that: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes[/url] Tells us that ~85 - ~100 million people (Maybe more? Communists love their secrets.) were killed however under National Socialist rule (If you count only the holocaust) you get 11 million people. (Last time I read about it was 6? whut.)[/quote] They can't even be compared, not in scale, aims, or means. The nazis represented the most reactionary and imperialist side of germany that systematically killed 12 million people and at least 25 million soviet civilians alone, and that was over the course of a few years before being defeated. The USSR in the Stalin period executed several hundred thousand and kept a steady gulag population of around 2-3 million from 1928-1953, mostly for crimes that weren't even political. [url=http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf]Do some reading on actual archival figures.[/url]. You cite wikipedia on a revolutionary political issue, which is an awful idea to begin with. Unsurprisingly, it cites a dishonest cold war historian named Robert Conquest no one with serious academic interest in soviet history bothers with. He himself admitted his obsession with producing a 100 million number, and took from [i]anywhere[/i], including things not even related to communism or out of the ruling state's power, like famines. It's a now useless (thanks to soviet collapse) leftover of the past that was never written as a serious intrigue, just a piece of propaganda many, many people will buy. For american liberals and their state, no invented crime is off the table. [quote]My point? Communism is no better than National Socialism and should be treated like National Socialism is treated today.[/quote] As if your polemic, true or not, will make a difference. Liberals have been complaining about fascists and communists being the same ever since fascists proved their disuse as an anti-communist buffer. Fascists have been likening liberals and communists since they were 'backstabbers', 'anti-national', and on occasion controlled by Jews. It's just three ways of hate and warfare between each other, who cares how many parallels you can draw (because you can do it with all 3) if they're all mutually exclusive. Though liberals, fence-sitters they are, will be forced to choose between the two at the point of crisis eventually, and history reflects this. Some will feel too connected to the working class and the common man to be the kind fierce defender of conservatism and the nation the fascist is, others may. [quote]Here's something else that your loving Communists have done: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#Shelling_of_Mainila[/url] and [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainila[/url] - Attacking its own citizens to create a reason so they can attack another nation (who already fought a civil war about if they should take up communism - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War[/url]) and force its ideology upon them, when clearly they did not want it. And then attacking it again - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War[/url][/quote] Rofl what does this have to do with communism or communists? How does the continuation war, a part of the fascist invasion, even constitute a shred of a 'communist crime'? Yes, the USSR was distrusting and hostile to its right wing nationalist neighbors. It didn't like having a tiny piece of land between a german sympathizing state and a major city, Leningrad, which proved to be a good idea. Does this have anything to do with working class revolution or even a state claiming to carry out such things? No, not at all. That seems to be a disgustingly common strawman. Communism is not tied to one nation or a state and it never will be. It is a general movement of working class resistance that transcends all boundaries. [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain[/url][/quote] The iron curtain a product of imperialists engaging in the fiercest struggle with the bloc it could without engaging in war. In the past the USSR was devastated by the west's unwillingness to strangle nazism in its infancy and because of that was invaded by germany and its eastern european allies in what became the biggest front in WW2. It's entirely unsurprising the soviet state built a buffer zone, and at the same time resolved nationalist issues within it, when capitalist europe had already demonstrated it would adopt nothing but an aggressive attitude towards the USSR. And yet, it doesn't really have anything to do with communism. It reflects the interest of the state capitalist USSR which was engaged in a struggle with western imperialists, but then we realize that would mean it is yet another inter-imperialist struggle that capitalist history is full of. [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall[/url] - Very few nations have to build a wall to keep their citizens in.[/quote] Very few nations have even been under such an assault from the west, which entailed backhanded things as buying out skilled labor and specialists in the socialist country. It helped starve them of money by making them waste money in public education and the other huge amount of state-funded services on people who would be encouraged to leave the country. But for the record, states throughout history, including capitalist ones, have been very hostile towards encouraged emigration. It, like war, is simply politics through another means, and no state reacts well to hostile politics. But then we have to ask, what do struggles between non-socialist states have to do with working class revolution and control? [quote]"Droughts and famines in Russia and the USSR tended to occur on a fairly regular basis, with famine occurring every 10–13 years and droughts every 5–7 years." - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_USSR[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921[/url][/quote] The USSR ended the cycle of famines that were commonplace in tsarist Russia, with the only major one that could attributed to the state through its mistakes being the 1933 famine. The 1921 famine was a product of the civil war, its desperate policies, and food sabotage by some peasants. The last major one was in 1945, a product of WW2. I don't even see any valid points here against the USSR, let alone socialism. [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decossackization[/url][/quote] Cossacks were a spearhead of tsarist reaction and had a blood history of suppressing the peasants, and during the civil war they fought the bolsheviks and continued to resist their government. Their suppression was to be expected from a state trying to consolidate modern state capitalism in backwards Russia, which the cossacks insisted on preserving. [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge[/url][/quote] Again, what does this have to do with communism? The stalinist government purged many socialists and the rest of the old bolsheviks long before then and were capitalists themselves. On top of that, the great purge was more about fighting bureaucratic careerism and opportunism that threatened the power of the ruling party's clique. Where is the socialism or product of socialism in this? [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization[/url][/quote] Somehow building modern state capitalism and industry in a mostly peasant country and fighting its subsequent resistors (the wealthy section of the peasantry) doesn't quite strike me as socialism in practice or some 'socialist crime'. I'll grant you Stalin carried our collectivization too fast and too harsh, but how is this tied to a broader concept that is socialism? [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor[/url][/quote] Holodomor is a myth. There was a famine, but it wasn't intentional. It was a product of mismanagement, bad weather and subsequent bad harvest, and some kulak resistance. [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag[/url][/quote] What is this supposed to be against? Prison labor? Let me remind you the US has its own system of prison labor and has one of the biggest prisoner population in the world. On top of that, most gulag sentencings were apolitical didn't go beyond 10 years, what does this have to do with socialism? [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_in_the_Soviet_Union[/url][/quote] I don't see how this is surprising considering the history of the soviet state capitalist economy and its relationship with germans in the anti-fascist period, or how this is a product of socialism or proof the USSR was socialist. [quote]I'll just stick to my [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism]Anarcho-Capitalism[/url] and be free and happy.[/QUOTE] LOL it's not surprising at all you'd pick such a ludicrous ideology that happens to be a contradiction in terms. I'd love neo-feudalism too if I was a hobbesian narcissist.
I have to say that was a rather complete and mostly on target point-by-point response there. Well done.
I wonder if he'll even reply, I don't even know if I want him to. Some people have difficulty breaking with pre-conceptions they're raised with.
By the definition of many people in this thread, communism has never been attempted or enacted in any successful form. The few (tow?) times that may have come close failed because of unrelated problems. We cannot pass judgement on which "system" is "best" because one of them has never been put into action and cannot be judged.
[IMG]http://www.webcam-steamate.com/cookies/42/b/happy.gif[/IMG] Preliminary: it is critical to note that communism and capitalism are not types of states, regimes, or governments. Communism and capitalism describe modes of economic organisation, not political organisation. Answer: communism and capitalism are both economic modes of organisation characterised by different relations of property and normative views. In capitalism, socially-shared property is mostly held privately, interest is used from capital investment to fuel more investment, and social relations in production are mediated by wage-labour, where labourers contract out their time in return for financial compensation. Morally, capitalism (usually) combines with rights-based theories that emphasise freedom and equality of opportunity.
[QUOTE=Conscript;35310972]I wonder if he'll even reply, I don't even know if I want him to. [B]Some people have difficulty breaking with pre-conceptions they're raised with.[/B][/QUOTE] A rather cocky answer, is this allowed in this forum section and the last sentence, heh. But I will reply, when I have the time. Also you calling Finland a nationalist right winged nation made me laugh, please read about them. And please don't assume I am some American fanboy.
Cocky? I never said you were wrong because of it, I just dislike discussing stuff with your kind. I don't know how you can dispute that finland was anything but that, especially considering the circumstances it was formed in and the state of eastern europe at the time. It was quite common among the smaller states that never fell to socialism, and most of them became part of the axis by 41 and particapated in barbarossa.
only reason communism didn't work was that capitalism was his neighboor
[QUOTE=wanksta11;35381147]only reason communism didn't work was that capitalism was his neighboor[/QUOTE] Have you even bothered to read the thread? What evidence are you going to produce to support your assertion? Do you have any examples? Do you know what Communism actually is? Stating it failed because of Capitalism isn't exactly debating.
It's pretty damn true.
[QUOTE=Mythman;35381577]Have you even bothered to read the thread? What evidence are you going to produce to support your assertion? Do you have any examples? Do you know what Communism actually is? Stating it failed because of Capitalism isn't exactly debating.[/QUOTE] It's commonly accepted by communists that immediate communism won't succeed without strong international support. Communism in one nation fails when capitalism competes with it. It's the equivalent of you living off your garden, selling your goods to your neighbors, and your neighbor running an industrialized slave farm. You can't compete, you lose money, you don't survive. But if everyone grew gardens and traded and bought and sold each other's goods, then everyone survives. Or even a few gardens, don't even need everyone. "In most Marxist schools, such as Trotskyism, the essentially international character of the class struggle and the necessity of global scope are critical elements and a chief explanation of the failure of socialism in one country." [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_revolution[/url]
[QUOTE=Marbalo;35392225]Would the Soviet Union be any different under Trotsky - compared to Stalin? Would it be the same ruthless Stalinist dictatorship?[/QUOTE] Coin toss. Trotsky had heavy criticisms of Stalin once he was out of power, but experience shows that Trotsky was flexible in his morals and philosophy when in actual power. Before and after the Bolsheviks had control, he was a stickler for democracy and more liberties than Stalin or Lenin, but once he was actually in power, he didn't support those as much and benefited from the military dictatorship as leader of the Red Army. He was criticized for this pretty hard by Goldman after he was exiled. The economic policies definitely would have been different. I would say that we wouldn't have had the massive death toll that Stalin had, nor such brutal conditions. I think we would have seen closer to Lenin and we would have Stalin, and I might go as far as to say Trotsky may have even been a Khrushchev, but there's no way to be sure.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;35392225]Would the Soviet Union be any different under Trotsky - compared to Stalin? Would it be the same ruthless Stalinist dictatorship?[/QUOTE] I don't believe it would have been different. perhaps the power wouldn't have been as consolidated under Trotsky as it would be under Stalin, but the problem with the USSR was that the party and the state became one, which was not only an incredibly corrupt way of running a government, but it is by nature violent. The revolutionary party (or "Vanguard Party") is built off of crime and violence. Stalin robbed banks before the revolution. Even though the Bolshevik's didn't lead the revolution, the party structure was still filled with subversives, criminals, and people with shady morals/questionable character. Having these people run the country was just a terrible idea. Trotsky killed a few thousand in the Kronstadt rebellion after the civil war. If you've ever read V For Vendetta (The comic is much more different than the movie; the comic is about Anarchy while the movie is about liberal democracy almost), then V explains (V for Vendetta spoilers ahead) [sp]that the people who destroy society cannot be the ones to rebuild it. V says that there are two kinds of anarchists: Those who create and those who destroy. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh (though there's a grey area with him), Kim Il-Sung were all destroyers.[/sp] This is coming from a Marxist perspective. Marxists are unanimous in agreeing that the USSR was a massive failure of a socialist experiment, but have learned a lot from it, and also like to hold onto our idols in pre-stalin USSR, who always have a halo effect when you see that they were all killed for standing up to Stalin (For more about these guys, read [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Trials"]about the Moscow Mock Trials which marked the beginning of the great purges.[/URL] Stalin killed very VERY important and prominent soviet statesmen and generals. Imagine Joseph McCarthy Convicting Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, or Douglas MacArthur for being communist spies.)
[QUOTE=Torjuz;34372379]Before every American goes ahead and says Capitalism...[/QUOTE] I don't think the OP was very fair to Americans. We're not all jingoists stuck in 1960, worried about Communist subversion. That said, communism is a terrible idea to me, even the idealistic utopia you mention sounds revolting. Capitalism is best.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35259892]I like how all you said was I don't know anything of history (Ignoring the fact that Capitalism or Communism is more of an economic debate) and nothing that actually disproves my points. Also, your last statement made me laugh. Go study economics and we shall speak again![/QUOTE] The USSR was state capitalist under Lenin's NEP. The paradigm was that after the state collected the quota of farm products, the farmer was free to sell whatever surplus he had for a profit, which help farm production surpass pre-revolution levels Which was actually very bad. People were motivated to produce more and more to beat the quota, and NEPmen (dudes who went around and bought up the surplus crops from the farmers to sell back elsewhere at a higher profit) ended up saturating the market.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;35398239]I don't think the OP was very fair to Americans. We're not all jingoists stuck in 1960, worried about Communist subversion. That said, communism is a terrible idea to me, even the idealistic utopia you mention sounds revolting. Capitalism is best.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately America does have a large amount of Free Market jingoists (looking at your Republican candidates and the sheer number of people that support them). Socialism is a bogeyman word in the USA and many Americans think Socialism = Communism. Most of the older generations are highly, highly sceptical of Communism due to its (wrong) connotations to the USSR. Why do you find Communism terrible? Why does the 'idealistic utopia' sound revolting? How is Communism an 'idealistic utopia' anyway? If you provide some reasons we could have a discourse and I can understand your point of view.
[QUOTE=prooboo;35398349]The USSR was state capitalist under Lenin's NEP. The paradigm was that after the state collected the quota of farm products, the farmer was free to sell whatever surplus he had for a profit, which help farm production surpass pre-revolution levels Which was actually very bad. People were motivated to produce more and more to beat the quota, and NEPmen (dudes who went around and bought up the surplus crops from the farmers to sell back elsewhere at a higher profit) ended up saturating the market.[/QUOTE] better than war communism. that only killed a few million people? e: tbh to me communism as a goal seems like one of those things which work great in theory but in practice, not so much. the chinese managed to figure that one out!
[QUOTE=R3N3GADE;35409130]better than war communism. that only killed a few million people? e: [B]tbh to me communism as a goal seems like one of those things which work great in theory but in practice, not so much.[/B] the chinese managed to figure that one out![/QUOTE] So many people say that but don't understand that 'proper' Communism has worked and there are historical examples of it working. The USSR and China are not Communist - they are dictatorships with a state run economy. You cannot be a dictator and a true Communist :smile:
[QUOTE=Mythman;35409915]So many people say that but don't understand that 'proper' Communism has worked and there are historical examples of it working. The USSR and China are not Communist - they are dictatorships with a state run economy. You cannot be a dictator and a true Communist :smile:[/QUOTE] i take it, then, by communist you're referring to the final stage of marxist doctrine - in that sense, i'd agree that the USSR and China never reached this stage (and never will). what historical examples, however, do you have of this actually occuring?
[QUOTE=R3N3GADE;35409946]i take it, then, by communist you're referring to the final stage of marxist doctrine - in that sense, i'd agree that the USSR and China never reached this stage (and never will). what historical examples, however, do you have of this actually occuring?[/QUOTE] I don't think there are any examples if it is conceived of in this sense (as the final stage). I.e. as a total eradication of alienation, the solution to the "riddle of history", etc. There are plenty of examples of people organising production and exchange in alternate ways to that of capitalism, though. You could point to moments in the Spanish Civil War, the early days of the Soviets in Russia (pre civil war and despotism), even people organising collectives within broader capitalist economies. Maybe that's a better way to think about it, as alternative practices emerging in the here and now rather than the kind of quasi-religious utopian paradise that Leninists and Trots still promise.
Organizing collectives within capitalism to achieve 'socialism' is not utopian? It's either proletarian dictatorship or you're just reforming capitalism. I'm not sure where the Leninists are wrong, perhaps maybe with the anti-revolutionary 'marxist-leninist' comintern or the later 'revisionists'. But then, that's not a problem with leninist theory itself, just degeneration of the revolution caused by isolation and backwardsness.
[QUOTE=Conscript;35413735]Organizing collectives within capitalism to achieve 'socialism' is not utopian? It's either proletarian dictatorship or you're just reforming capitalism. I'm not sure where the Leninists are wrong, perhaps maybe with the anti-revolutionary 'marxist-leninist' comintern or the later 'revisionists'. But then, that's not a problem with leninist theory itself, just degeneration of the revolution caused by isolation and backwardsness.[/QUOTE] I'd definitely say that there's much to be desired in Leninism. I've always held to the idea that Leninism is what it produced, and agree in most part with [url=http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/227.html]Goldman on the issue of Bolshevik rule in the USSR[/url]. The idea of nationalization and crushing any opposition is a foreign concept to me. I can understand the idea of suppressing counter-revolutionary and bourgeois forces in the interest of the revolution- [url=http://libcom.org/library/political-soviet-grinding-machine-emma-goldman]but I don't agree with it[/url] (again, myself agreeing with Goldman). I've read a bit by Lenin, and I agree with him mostly in his critiques of capitalism and imperialism. I do agree with a few of his opinions in "State and Revolution" (and disagree just as much). I think that, in writing, Lenin was somewhat agreeable. None of this translated in power. At all. Instead of taking from his own writings, he enacted a regime of terror and authority. Instead of acting to "wither away the state", he strengthened it even more so than in the Republic and the Social Democrats he argued against, and crushed Anarchists whom his only major disagreement with was the mechanism by which the state should be abolished. I simply don't agree with Leninism in alot of aspects, at least in its practice (and I do realize that not all of the country's doings during Lenin's leadership were in line with Lenin or Leninism, but much was, and that much of what happened was in response to the specific situation in Russia). Major things like strengthening the state, crushing counter-revolutionary thought through violence, and abolition of many aspects of democratic society are just deal breakers for me. [editline]3rd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=R3N3GADE;35409946]i take it, then, by communist you're referring to the final stage of marxist doctrine - in that sense, i'd agree that the USSR and China never reached this stage (and never will). what historical examples, however, do you have of this actually occuring?[/QUOTE] [quote]I'll direct you to the following: (keep in mind that I am applying anarchist nations as communist nations, as they are mostly identical in final form. The only difference is the method by which the communist/anarchist nation is achieved. I also include 'proper' Marxist states.) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain#1936_Revolution[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_faction_(Spanish_Civil_War)[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_commune[/url] (this is what started the anarchist and communist political factions, between Bakunin and Marx, and what both describe as the application of socialist revolutionary theory.) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Soviet_Republic[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution[/url] (Not Marxist Socialist, but socialist none the less, with political support coming directly from Marxists. The government was primarily social democrats (Marxist split off), Social Revolutionaries (anarcho-communists), and Mensheviks (Marxists/communists). This is the workers' revolution that Goldman saw the Bolsheviks (initially, but we all know how that turned out) as an extension of. Because they nationalized as opposed to cooperated the industries, and continued the war, it saw a direct jump to Bolshevik support, leading to the October Revolution. The Kronstad Rebellion of 1921 is seen as the final point of no return, where the embers of the 'true' revolution were wiped out for good and totalitarianism fully grasped the USSR.) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation[/url][/quote]
Well, nationalization was done out of necessity. Not only was the new state ruling over backwards lands, but much of it was in shambles. No other socialist factions were arguing for anything else, unless you count mensheviks as 'socialists'. Some of them, like the left SRs, even worked with the bolsheviks for a time. What alternative was there? Makhno? His peasant anarchism would have gotten Russia nowhere, and probably would have fallen if forced to stand alone. I appreciate the bolsheviks primarily because they helped spark the international revolution and take the lid off war-accumulated dissent. Anarchism and marxism were asleep before WW1, and let loose by October. If, say, germany hadn't fallen to reaction no one would speak of a Leninist failure. Russia was to be an outpost of resistance that had to immediately modernize, but prolonged isolation resulted in deviations like 'socialism in one country'. It was an excuse to assault trotskyists and anachists in spain and elsewhere, so it's important to specify what 'leninism' you're talking about when you say there's much to be desired.
[QUOTE=Conscript;35415345]Well, nationalization was done out of necessity. Not only was the new state ruling over backwards lands, but much of it was in shambles. No other socialist factions were arguing for anything else, unless you count mensheviks as 'socialists'. Some of them, like the left SRs, even worked with the bolsheviks for a time. What alternative was there? Makhno? His peasant anarchism would have gotten Russia nowhere, and probably would have fallen if forced to stand alone. I appreciate the bolsheviks primarily because they helped spark the international revolution and take the lid off war-accumulated dissent. Anarchism and marxism were asleep before WW1, and let loose by October. If, say, germany hadn't fallen to reaction no one would speak of a Leninist failure. Russia was to be an outpost of resistance that had to immediately modernize, but prolonged isolation resulted in deviations like 'socialism in one country'. It was an excuse to assault trotskyists and anachists in spain and elsewhere, so it's important to specify what 'leninism' you're talking about when you say there's much to be desired.[/QUOTE] I agree that the nationalization was needed -at the moment- but was harmful in the long term and should have been abolished by the mid 30s at the latest. Mensheviks, SRs, Kadets and Progressists were all partially revolutionaries (compared to the exist regime, at least) and most of them were driven to war with the Bolsheviks who took seizing power of their own over the wants of the masses and used that power to crush revolutionaries and the ruling classes alike. I understand the need for drastic measures in Russia, but the Bolsheviks took it too far. There was no need to coup against a legitimate popular government with only minor losing support, just to slaughter anyone with a voice and a differing political view s that were so nit-picking that there was no reason to war when it could have been decided through policy. The Bolsheviks took the hard way out and attempted to oust a government that they were allowed in until they started throwing stones. The support for removal of suffrage and democracy, both popular and representative, and the action of totalitarian tactics, removed any legitimacy from them and from Lenin, who not only stood idly by but also defended many of it. Leninism as an ideology isn't necessarily disagreeable, but Lenin himself did not follow it. The need to nationalize was apparent, but it was not done properly, and the state that was claimed to need to wither away was used as a tool of subjugation. While peasant anarchism was no savior, the Bolsheviks crushed alternatives in the form of immediate anarchism, social democracy, progressivist capitalism, and socialism. While none of those are completely satisfying (and some far from it), I'd take any one over a totalitarian all-powerful and murderous state. I'd take social democratic capitalism over the state that the Bolsheviks created. I guess what I'm saying is that Leninism itself isn't bad, but Lenin did not follow his own words, making him either an opportunist or misguided. The alternatives to the state he created were better than the state he removed, regardless of the intentions. My issue is less with Leninism than with Lenin.
The USSR adopted nationalization due to the material conditions in which they faced. Kadets, both SR's were all counter-revolutionaries (ESPECIALLY THE KADETS) who merely wanted to ensure bourgeoisie rule. The Kerensky regime was [b]NOT[/b] popular, and whether or not it is should not be an issue when it comes to the wheel of human progress. Red terror was adopted under material conditions - white terror (hundreds of thousands died at the hands of the Whites, many for simply being Jewish). The Bolsheviks did not seek to remove democracy - only bourgeoisie democracy. Comrade, "totalitarian" is counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie liberal philosophy, no such words have meaning. [b]Socialism is communism[/b], because under socialism, the bourgeoisie no longer exist (the proleteriat oust them). The distinction is made by Marxist-Leninists. Social democracy is capitalism, and thus inherently evil. The state the Bolsheviks made was not because they wanted it to appear in the manner in which it did - but due to [b]MATERIAL CONDITIONS[/b]. This is basic Marxism, folks! Btw, regarding the USSR under Trotsky question, I personally believe it would still of collapsed, because it was dependent on world revolution. Socialism in one country was adopted under these conditions - and it abandoned the revolution to save the revolution (but, as expected, its success would be very short). When the German Revolution failed, the USSR was doomed from the start. There's a possibility however, could Trotsky of spread the revolution to Germany (many believe he could of, as he predicted the Nazi rise to power), Poland, Spain?
[QUOTE=wakarimasen;35416462]The USSR adopted nationalization due to the material conditions in which they faced. Kadets, both SR's were all counter-revolutionaries (ESPECIALLY THE KADETS) who merely wanted to ensure bourgeoisie rule. The Kerensky regime was [b]NOT[/b] popular, and whether or not it is should not be an issue when it comes to the wheel of human progress. Red terror was adopted under material conditions - white terror (hundreds of thousands died at the hands of the Whites, many for simply being Jewish). The Bolsheviks did not seek to remove democracy - only bourgeoisie democracy. Comrade, "totalitarian" is counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie liberal philosophy, no such words have meaning. [b]Socialism is communism[/b], because under socialism, the bourgeoisie no longer exist (the proleteriat oust them). The distinction is made by Marxist-Leninists. Social democracy is capitalism, and thus inherently evil. The state the Bolsheviks made was not because they wanted it to appear in the manner in which it did - but due to [b]MATERIAL CONDITIONS[/b]. This is basic Marxism, folks! [/QUOTE] The nationalization needed to end, though, plain and simple. You can't say "wither away the state!" but "Strengthen the state to no foreseeable end!" Those groups were not counter-revolutionary- simply counter-Bolshevik coup. The Revolution took place in April- was it bourgeois? Yes, but it was the most progressive and socialist oriented bourgeois state of the time. It was definitely a popular revolution, and the distaste towards the Kerensky government was purely due to two things- lack of worker control of the means of production, and continuation of the war- two things I think needed to be fixed. This was the cause of people's dislike of Kerensky, not the regime itself. Lenin's coup and boisterous unmoving opinions that he refused to compromise with or work with anyone else, caused those groups to join against the Bolsheviks. It didn't help that even before the coup, the Bolsheviks were targeting anarchists and socialists that weren't on board with their program. You don't respond with violence via violence. The Red Terror killed many in "safe" areas just as much as on the front- most weren't enemy combatants. At what point does subjugating political opponents, stomping out those with differing opinions, and killing innocents become a good idea? Both terrors were unjustified- trying to justify either one is idiotic at best. If you're so far along to not see Lenin as an authoritarian, totalitarian, dictator who smudged out suffrage for most groups, then I think that you're too far down the Lenin road to see any criticism. Smudging out democracy- period- is not a good idea. I can understand the appeal in removing bourgeois democracy, but once the proletariat are in control, what's the need? The proletariat outnumber the bourgeois- if removal of democracy to prevent bourgeois control is necessary, then you don't have the support of the proletariat, and must be going on a "We're going to free you- whether you want it or not" ideology. When the action of dictatorship is at all justified in your "revolution", that isn't a revolution- it's a seizure of power. As far as socialism and communism- socialism was merely the nationalized transition stage, not the final goal. Communism was the decentralised state (if not abolition of it entirely), making nationalism nearly impossible. Hell, even Marx and Bakunin agreed that their final goal was the same. The Bolsheviks created a state due to material needs that they never ended. Their actions cost them allies, and their reactions (if they weren't the first actions) to the Whites and enemy Reds were to kill civilians, remove essential liberties, strengthen the state, and take even more control out of the hands of the workers than they had previously. Bravo. Great work. Again, I'm in agreement with Goldman on this one. The Bolsheviks fucked it up big time and created the opposite of what was needed in the end and lead a direct pathway to Stalinism through their strengthened state and suppressed liberty.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;35398239]I don't think the OP was very fair to Americans. We're not all jingoists stuck in 1960, worried about Communist subversion. That said, communism is a terrible idea to me, even the idealistic utopia you mention sounds revolting. Capitalism is best.[/QUOTE]Not everyone in America is a capitalist, no, but the ones who are can be very manipulative.
Comrade, first, as a note, I'd like to point the fact that Russia had [b]not[/b] undergone a bourgeoisie revolution prior to the proletariat revolution, and, as a result, there was little to no actual bourgeoisie (it was very feudal). Bourgeoisie socialism is counter-revolutionary, plain and simple. The proletariat need to hold political power. Whereas the Kadets and SR's wanted to strengthen the bourgeoisie in a state with little-to-none, Bolsheviks wanted to seek a gradual increase to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin's 'coup' was clearly supported by the workers and soldiers, after all, and it gained the support as the civil war dawned (the whites, at their height, were outnumbered by the reds, at their height). Not everyone subjugated to the "Red Terror" was bad, but they did [b]FAR LESS[/b] than what the Czechs, Ukrainian "anarchist" war lord, White czarists, and SR bastards did. Who could blame them for being cautious as hundreds of thousands of innocents were being slaughter by the ruthless counter-revolutionaries? Lenin? A dictator? Are you kidding me? He was elected chair by the Congress of Soviets, and never had absolute say. Russia was practically in anarchy (not "enlightened" per se, but in total chaos) and any "authoritarian" measures by Lenin (War Communism) arose due to material conditions. Stop being so unscientific (but hey, what does one expect from the ultra-left). Lol, once again, with the whole distinction between socialism and communism. Marx never made such a thing - "the transition stage" is Marxist-Leninist crap to justify Stalin's state capitalism and strong bureaucracy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.